Those "More senior Saab Captains" either were downgraded Avro captains not subject to the seat lock or senior FO's that took the upgrade knowing they would be seatlocked off the jets. So no I don't think they should have been complaining about seatlocks. They could have waited a little longer then taken the jet upgrade just like some of "those junior FO's did" There was nothing FORCING them to take an immediate Saab upgrade.
I chose to wait the extra 4-5 months to take jet captain instead of going back to the left seat of the Saab, and so could they have if they wanted.
As for not wanting junior guys on the jet. The 900's are easier to fly than the Saab's. Both from a systems and with proper training and common sense an environmental (weather) point of view. You'd be surprised at the mistakes some of the senior (8+years) guys have made...... We have quite a few guys that spent thier entire career here on the Saab and had no clue when it came to jet aerodynamics and high altitude flight....
I'd say someone with 7000 hours all in the Saab isn't any safer thier first day on the 900 than a 1500 hour guy that has 1000 hours in the right seat of jet airplanes operating similar to the 900's (or better yet one of the 900 fo's ).

 

Avroman, I could not agree with you more. Again your insight and analysis of the situation is spot on and 100% accurate.

By releasing the Saab CA seats, they had to hire more people for Saab FO seats left vacant by those Saab FOs upgrading to fill Saab CA seats left vacant by those switching to CRJ900 CA seats, thus contributing greatly to the Saab overstaffing situation XJ is experiencing now. This is in addition to the considerable additional training cost incurred by XJ by this decision. Heck, they even released seat locks on senior CRJ900 FO who had decided to switch over to CRJ900 from Saab FO position in early 2007 knowing fully that they would be seat locked for 2 years.

 

Uh... MANY of the saab CAs were previously downgraded captains that took the first opportunity to upgrade. Many of us were under the impression that we were not under seatlock, because we had already upgraded and forced back to FO and were merely returning to our original position. There was a grievance on the issue. All the others, yes, knew there was a seatlock. Just like we all knew there was READY RESERVE in the contract (right avroman) and shouldn't be complaining about it. In the end, there wouldn't have been enough qualified FOs to staff the 900 left seats, so saab CA seatlocks would have been released anyhow. The argument is a moot point.

The issue between being a saab CA or a jet CA has nothing to do with flying skills. It has everything to do with being in charge of more than twice the amount of people. It's about the role of the CA and all the other responsibilities that go into it. It's far more than a pay raise and occupying the left seat... which many quick upgraded FOs are learning right now, if they made it through upgrade training.

Yes, the company has to pay for their decision of the released seatlocks. But you have to remember they staffed the way they did knowing we would be getting 15 more 900s. They didn't do this knowing DL would pull the rug out from under us and stop the deliveries at 5. Everything was planned on actually getting these planes, so to look back and complain about the decision the company made isn't practical. We should be glad that they company actually had the foresight to be proactive in staffing and what they were doing AT THE TIME when we were on track for these planes made complete sense. Glitches like what we're experiencing happen all the time. The end game is how they deal with it and it certainly looks to me like they're doing everything in the contract and MORE to mitigate involuntary furloughs.

 

[quote=bored;552256]Uh... MANY of the saab CAs were previously downgraded captains that took the first opportunity to upgrade. Many of us were under the impression that we were not under seatlock, because we had already upgraded and forced back to FO and were merely returning to our original position. There was a grievance on the issue. All the others, yes, knew there was a seatlock. Just like we all knew there was READY RESERVE in the contract (right avroman) and shouldn't be complaining about it. In the end, there wouldn't have been enough qualified FOs to staff the 900 left seats, so saab CA seatlocks would have been released anyhow. The argument is a moot point.

The issue between being a saab CA or a jet CA has nothing to do with flying skills. It has everything to do with being in charge of more than twice the amount of people. It's about the role of the CA and all the other responsibilities that go into it. It's far more than a pay raise and occupying the left seat... which many quick upgraded FOs are learning right now, if they made it through upgrade training.

Yes, the company has to pay for their decision of the released seatlocks. But you have to remember they staffed the way they did knowing we would be getting 15 more 900s. They didn't do this knowing DL would pull the rug out from under us and stop the deliveries at 5. Everything was planned on actually getting these planes, so to look back and complain about the decision the company made isn't practical. We should be glad that they company actually had the foresight to be proactive in staffing and what they were doing AT THE TIME when we were on track for these planes made complete sense. Glitches like what we're experiencing happen all the time. The end game is how they deal with it and it certainly looks to me like they're doing everything in the contract and MORE to mitigate involuntary furloughs.[/quote]

1. I agree that the reinstatement rights guys got the screwjob and had every right to grieve being locked out of the option to go to the jets. The guys that just simply took the first upgrade, they had thier choice,then got the benefit of changing the rules halfway through.

2. True, it was left in there even though it hadn't been used until after 9-11. It SHOULD have been removed from the contract in 2003. That ship sailed, without it being done however, again it didn't seem like an issue since the company didn't ever use them again until this past year. Nobody had any expectation of them being used, otherwise I can guarantee people would have chosen different paths. I am not complaining about R.R., but I will be pulling for that to be removed from the contract in 2011 (among several other things that need addressing).

3. The number of people you are flying around does not change your duties as a captain. It makes no difference if you are flying 30 people on the Saab or 70 on the CR9 or 0 on a 727F, you are operating an airplane requiring the same dilligence to your duties. The pay difference has to do with revenue creation not amount of work and care involved in captaining the different planes.

4. It is shocking that for the first time in the history of the company they tried to be proactive about the staffing, even if they managed to have things really goofed up at the beginning. (the whole instructor fiasco on the 900) I applaud them for that even if it has caused the current situation (again partly because of the seatlock issue addressed in my previous post) Hopefully that becomes the normal way of doing things instead of junormanning and cancelling vacations before deciding to hire.

5. Again shocking after how things were dealt with/ company attitude about things during the bankruptcy. Perhaps this is the beginning of seeing the "Delta way" instead of the old Northwest way of continue to kick them harder when they are down ( rememeber the old dumpster diving pamphlet that was given out during the NWA bankruptcy?) I am a bit skeptical of the reason why things are so different in the company's attitude toward mitigating furloughs this time around but I've been furloughed and wouldn't want to see anyone else have to be involuntarily furloughed. A voluntary towop or half month lines are a much better way to go in my opinion.


Ultimately the seatlocks were just about moot anyway. The award that was cancelled would likely have had some 2007 FO's on it anyways. The Saab captains that wanted to go to the jets did, the ones that didn't weren't likely to go on that cancelled award or the one (that would have come after it.) The best we can hope for short term is a good increase in block hours this summer and a minimal impact from PBS starting this fall.... Longer term yes it would be nice to get the remaining allotment of 900's but at this point it can't be counted on.

 

Regarding RR... I remember it being used for saab guys right after 9/11 because we were all of a sudden over staffed. It hadn't been used since, because we were chronically understaffed. And now, since we're properly staffed, they use it. I hate doing just like you, but it's there. Just because it hadn't been used very often in the past, doesn't mean they can't use it when staffing permits. Sorry man, but I don't buy the people would have taken different paths bit, just because RR wasn't used in the past. Again, it was in the contract, black and white. That's something we'll never get rid of. If anything, perhaps we can just improve the language. It's not something worth fighting for... I'd much rather expend negotiating capital on better things like FO pay, better hotel language etc...

Let's hope that what's going on now, is just a blip on the radar screen and a bump in the road. After getting trashed for 6 years, I'm skeptical, but will remain optimistic. I'm just not convinced our good days are over.

 

That's fine we all have our priorities. I want to see the end of RR, better perdiem, leg guarantee instead of trip guarantee, 12 days off in 31 day months, straight reserves paid as build ups are now since buildup will go away with PBS (3.75 per day instead of 0), 100% pay on deadheads, the end of the blended fo pay, holiday pay, ect. None of us get everything we want. No big deal. As for taking different paths, I would (and a few others I have specifically talked to) have not left the Saab had I known how things were going to play out. But because of my seatlock, I can't go back for about a year. If things do not change in that time I will go back first chance.
I too think there is likely something else good in the pipeline for us short term, but I see a light further down the tracks at around 2011-2012. Unfortunatly that light is the locomotive of the amendable time of the contract coupled to the end of the Saab leases. And another reason why the company wanted the senior pilots as captain on the 900s. Remember the cluster of removing the Avros (where most of the senior pilots were) and the multiple training events involved? With all the junior captains on a plane that goes away it's 1 event to train those guys to 900 fo then furlough all the original fo's. With many senior guys on the Saab it creates the displacement cascade when they then are forced to the jet captains causing the more junoir captains to the right seat causing 2 initial courses...

 

What up boys........I'mmmmmm baaaccckkkkkkkk.............

 

Good Postings about Mesaba, very thoughtful and interesting............

 

I don't understand the numbers on being overstaffed right now. People (including management from what I hear) talk as if we are overstaffed by 10 airplanes. Well the training didn't even get into full gear when it abruptly stopped in December. New hires and training, if you remember, was suppose to go all the way up to April. How can we be overstaffed now by 10 planes (the 10 we lost) if training never even got remotely finished for the full 15? I can understand the staffing issues between equipment, being terribly overstaffed I can not wrap my little brain around.

 

My only guess is classes would have continued for upgrades but newhires were pretty much done with the class that was cancelled anyway. Classes after that would mostly if not all be upgrades drawing down the staffing to the needed level on the Saab and increasing to needed for the (now not arriving) CR9's. Had they continued with new hires we would have ended up overstaffed reguardless....